Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 11th Apr 18, 3:13 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Do I have a valid defence?
    • #1
    • 11th Apr 18, 3:13 PM
    Do I have a valid defence? 11th Apr 18 at 3:13 PM
    Hi All,


    Before handing all my hard earned cash to these Highwaymen, can anyone tell me if, looking at these photos I have a valid argument to say the signage was not clear and legible given it was night and was not well lit?


    Cheers
    Steve


    PS. As a new user I am unable to add pictures if anyone has a work around please let me know
    Last edited by Oscar_UK; 11-04-2018 at 3:15 PM. Reason: Unable to add pictures
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 6:51 PM
    • 57,369 Posts
    • 70,964 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Why not search for PCM Gladstones claim or PCM Gladstones defence as forum keywords.

    Threads like yours are everywhere on the forum and it amazes me that newbies write as if they are the only one with a claim and give an appearance of not reading others, despite the fact we do several every day and threads EXACTLY like yours, same claim, same scam, same company, same defence basics are right here waiting for you to read them and learn from.

    Do the AOS online, exactly as the NEWBIES thread shows you in a pictogram link, and spend the weekend/next week reading PCM defence threads and draft your own.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Apr 18, 6:56 PM
    • 9,203 Posts
    • 8,968 Thanks
    The Deep
    Those sigs look very high to me, what does the COP say about this?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 14th Apr 18, 12:25 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Thanks for all your help

    The claim is dated the 9th. I've acknowledged it already.

    Thanks for the tip on previous cases I'll get searching.

    I've seen lots of references to signage tests but i can't seam to find the actual wording i.e. The sign must be x by x etc is there such a thing?

    Cheers
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 16th Apr 18, 9:48 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Hi The Deep what is the COP?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 16th Apr 18, 9:59 AM
    • 2,454 Posts
    • 3,002 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Code of Practice. Explained in the NEWBIES Thread you must read.
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 16th Apr 18, 11:30 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Yes, found it!


    The COP say's


    There must be at least one item from Group 1. But no more than three items from Group 1 should appear before, and more prominently than, text from Group 2.
    Group 1






    Pay and display [except/free for blue badge holders]


    [x minutes!!!8217;/hour!!!8217;s/hours!!!8217;] free parking [for [business name] customers only]


    Pay on exit


    Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving


    Parking for [business name] customers only


    Permit holders only


    Group 2






    Charges apply [after this][after x minutes/hours]


    Private land


    Terms and conditions apply


    See the notice[s] [in the car park] for details




    on the sign there is nothing from group 1 however it does say "No parking in this area" then goes onto mention a parking charge, isn't this a contradiction?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 16th Apr 18, 4:00 PM
    • 2,454 Posts
    • 3,002 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Well its not a contradiction

    It DOES MEAN there can be no contract. Search for "forbidding".

    To have a contract you must offer something, by forbidding there is no offer, therefore no contract.
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 19th Apr 18, 11:53 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    How does this look so far
    Hi Everyone, this is my defence statement which I've borrowed and adapted to suite my case.


    The main points I wanted to put across was the forbidding signs could not have formed a contract and the position of the sign was not prominent.


    How am I doing so far?




    In the County Court
    Claim Number:
    ******************
    Between
    PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD v
    ************************

    DEFENCE STATEMENT

    Preliminary

    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;



    “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the Creditor within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behavior is “roboclaims” and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point.
    1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ”Money owed “
    2. Those which are incoherent and make no sense.
    3. Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally
    recognisable claim against the defendant.

    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a
    full defence.
    3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    3.2. The Claimant has stated that a “parking charge” was incurred.
    3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a
    specificdefence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
    3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their “roboclaim” particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and “providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.”
    3.4.2. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3, 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    Background

    4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark
    ******which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.

    5. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. There was a “relevant obligation” either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    6. PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    6.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    6.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    6.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the “parking charge” has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    7.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    7.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    7.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
    ......................
    7.3 The NTK’s sent to the defendant do not contain the duration the vehicle is stated to have been parked, demonstrating the claimants failure to comply with POFA schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a) which states that the NTK must “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”
    ......................

    Failure to set out clear parking terms

    8.1 The signs on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is
    forbidding cannot also constitute an offer.
    8.2 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.3. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary
    defence above, woefully inadequate.
    8.3.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.3.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organization to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.3.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    ....................
    8.4. There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.
    8.5. It is therefore denied that the signs used by this claimant could have formed a fair or transparent contract with a driver or was capable of being formed in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
    8.5.1. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the IPC Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    8.5.2. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    8.5.3. The signage was lit from above and behind and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
    8.5.4. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    8.5.6. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
    8.6. Furthermore, no figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    ........................
    8.7. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.
    8.7.1. Para 205”The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
    8.7.2. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:
    8.7.3. 2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.
    8.7.4. 2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code
    8.8. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above.
    8.9. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:
    8.9.1. 1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
    8.10. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.
    8.11. As PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED are not the landowners, merely an agent, and cannot pursue the defendant for trespass.
    ....................
    9. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    9.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    9.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    9.3. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    9.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

    10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2) (g).

    11. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    12. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centers in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    13. The Court is also invited to take Judicial Notice of House of Commons, Friday 2 February 2018 meeting on Parking (Code of Practice) Bill where the MPs highlight these scams of the private parking companies and their solicitors and the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones were mentioned by at least one MP as being complicit in this scam.

    14. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in ignoring the defendant is wholly unreasonable. As such, the defendant will keep a note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    15. The defendant respectfully requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this
    defence.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Name -
    Signed -
    Date -


    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 19th Apr 18, 1:39 PM
    • 1,015 Posts
    • 1,954 Thanks
    Johnersh
    THIS NEEDS A LOT OF PRUNING. Some comments below in red. Probably not exhaustive. It's your defence not mine, so make sure you are happy with the final draft - whatever I say.
    ________

    In the County Court
    Claim Number: ******************
    Between
    PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD v ************************

    DEFENCE STATEMENTdelete

    Preliminary

    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A).
    unless separate Particulars were served, this is not actually required. A better argument is that material details have been omitted such that you don't understand what if any terms have been breached
    No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;


    “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the Creditor within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”
    How do you know that the trade association haven't seen the contract - the duty is to provide them with it, not you. The allegation should be that they must have one and you have not seen it or the material details are not addressed in the particulars
    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behavior is “roboclaims” and as such is against the public interest. In my view this adds nothing. Whilst you can be critical of the Claimant for this, it doesn't mean that the claim against you is not valid. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point.
    1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ”Money owed “
    2. Those which are incoherent and make no sense.
    3. Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.
    I would certainly address those points at an oral hearing, but you neither state how these are breached nor say here directly that the court should strike out the particulars

    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
    3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    3.2. The Claimant has stated that a “parking charge” was incurred.
    3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    3.4. T Repetitive. Delete.
    he Particulars of Claim contains insufficient details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.Accordingly, the Defendant is prejudiced. The Defendant cannot prepare a full and complete Defence in response to an inadequate and poorly drafted statement of case from the Claimant. The Defendant reserves the right to add to or amend the Defence should the Claimant (a) advance a different case via his witness evidence and/or (b) serve Amended Particulars of Claim. Any additional court fees or other litigation costs - of and occasioned by the amendment - should be borne by the Claimant.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.repetitive, much? Delete.
    3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their “roboclaim” particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and “providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.”
    3.4.2. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3, 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
    None of that is binding. I would delete it. By all means ask for new Particulars from the Claimant, but this is not concise. The court is aware of its powers.

    Background

    4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark******which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.

    5. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. There was a “relevant obligation” either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    6. PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bringa legal action on behalf of any third party who may be entitled to pursue a claim
    6.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    6.2. The Claimant ihas suffered no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    6.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any chargedelete. repetition.

    7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the “parking charge” has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    7.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    7.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    7.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
    ......................
    7.3 The NTK’s sent to the defendant do not contain the duration the vehicle is stated to have been parked, demonstrating the claimants failure to comply with POFA schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a) which states that the NTK must “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”
    ......................

    Failure to set out clear parking terms

    8.1 The signs on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer.
    Bear in mind the difficulty in saying this when this is likely to be the contract that you deny having had sight of. Rephrase?
    8.2 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.3. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    8.3.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.3.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organization to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.3.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    ....................
    8.4. There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.
    8.5. It is therefore denied that the signs used by this claimant could have formed a fair or transparent contract with a driver or was capable of being formed in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.Repetition. See 8.3.1. above. This is boring and makes your own document look like a "roboclaim" template of its own
    8.5.1. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the IPC Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    You refer to entrance signs elsewhere. J Spurling deals with bringing onerous terms to consumer attention - referred to elsewhere
    8.5.2. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    8.5.3. The signage was lit from above and behind and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. was it dark?
    8.5.4. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    this won't fly
    8.5.6. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
    8.6. Furthermore, no figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    this is emotive speak that adds nothing. It is repetitive of 8.5.2.
    ........................
    8.7. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.
    8.7.1. Para 205”The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

    I'd delete all of this. the Court will be well aware of PE v Beavis and you can argue all of that in your oral submissions
    8.7.2. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:
    8.7.3. 2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.
    8.7.4. 2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code
    8.8. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above.
    8.9. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:
    8.9.1. 1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
    8.10. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.
    8.11. As PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED are not the landowners, merely an agent, and cannot pursue the defendant for trespass.

    Repetition. Much?
    ....................
    9. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.delete.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    9.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.The Claimant is put to strict proof by means of hourly rate breakdown and receipted invoice for payment
    9.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    9.3. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    9.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.delete

    Everything below this line can be deleted. Nothing prejudices your right to costs under CPR 27(1)(g) which are optional. You can ask for these costs once the Court has made an order in your favour.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

    10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2) (g).

    11. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    12. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centers in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    13. The Court is also invited to take Judicial Notice of House of Commons, Friday 2 February 2018 meeting on Parking (Code of Practice) Bill where the MPs highlight these scams of the private parking companies and their solicitors and the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones were mentioned by at least one MP as being complicit in this scam.

    14. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in ignoring the defendant is wholly unreasonable. As such, the defendant will keep a note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    15. The defendant respectfully requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Name -
    Signed -
    Date -
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 19th Apr 18, 4:43 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Thanks Johnersh,


    I've amended it as you suggested. Please bear with me I am by no means a budding Rumpole of the Bailey. some of the legal argument's I understand others go over my head.


    How's it looking now




    In the County Court
    Claim Number:
    ******************
    Between
    PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD v
    ************************

    DEFENCE

    Preliminary

    1. M
    aterial details have been omitted from the particulars such that I don't understand what, if any terms have been breached. No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there,as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 the material details of this contract are not addressed in the particulars.


    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a)


    I took out the whole paragraph about Practice Direction 3a as I didn!!!8217;t fully understand the argument and thought it may not be relevant to my claim perhaps you can advise


    This is the particulars of the claim


    The Driver of the vehicle registration !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230; (the !!!8216;Vehicle!!!8217 Incurred the parking charge(s) on !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;.. for breaching the terms of parking on the land at!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;.


    The defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.


    AND THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and Indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £11.27 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day



    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a
    full defence.
    3.1. The Particulars of Claim contains insufficient details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a
    specificdefence. It just states !!!8220;parking charges for breaching the terms of parking!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    Accordingly, the Defendant is prejudiced. The Defendant cannot prepare a full and complete Defence in response to an inadequate and poorly drafted statement of case from the Claimant. The Defendant reserves the right to add to or amend the Defence should the Claimant (a) advance a different case via his witness evidence and/or (b) serve Amended Particulars of Claim. Any additional court fees or other litigation costs - of and occasioned by the amendment - should be borne by the Claimant.

    Background

    4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark
    ******which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.

    5. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. There was a !!!8220;relevant obligation!!!8221; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    6. PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring a legal action
    onbehalf of any third party who may be entitled to pursue a claim.
    6.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    6.2. The claimant has suffered no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question




    7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the !!!8220;parking charge!!!8221; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    7.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    7.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    7.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
    ......................
    7.3 The NTK!!!8217;s sent to the defendant do not contain the duration the vehicle is stated to have been parked, demonstrating the claimants failure to comply with POFA schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a) which states that the NTK must !!!8220;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates!!!8221;
    ......................

    Failure to set out clear parking terms

    8.1 The signs on site
    when eventually found, on close inspection? are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer.












    8.2 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.3. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary
    defence above, woefully inadequate.
    8.3.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.3.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organization to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.3.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    ....................
    8.4. There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.
    8.5. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    8.5.3. The signage was lit from above and behind and in the dark (as it was) any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair



    Yes it was dark


    Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
    8.5.4. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract
    8.6. Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:
    8.6.1. !!!8220;
    2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.!!!8221;
    8.6.2. !!!8220;2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code !!!8220;
    8.7. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above.
    8.8. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:
    8.8.1. 1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the !!!8220;Creditor!!!8221; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
    9. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    9.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    The Claimant is put to strict proof by means of hourly rate breakdown and receipted invoice for payment.
    9.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    9.3. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Name -
    Signed -
    Date -


    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 19th Apr 18, 4:52 PM
    • 7,155 Posts
    • 6,614 Thanks
    KeithP
    On 1 October 2015, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 were revoked and replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). The CRA applies to consumer contracts entered into on or after this date.
    .
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 20th Apr 18, 10:58 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Thanks for all your help so far guys. However I feel I'm a little out of my depth trying to argue points of law I really know nothing about so I've simplified my defence to highlight the points I do understand and feel confident I can argue.


    I've changed it to this;








    In the County Court
    Claim Number: ******************
    Between
    PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD v ************************






    Defence





    1 Introduction

    1.1. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark******which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.




    1.2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant is put to strict proof.


    1.3. This claim refers to a parking incident on land outside ****** For all intents and purposes land appears to be part of the public highway as indicated by the fallen “End of Parking restriction” sign.


    1.4. On the ********* at approximately 21:30 the vehicle was on said land.


    1.5. The Particulars of Claim states that the charge is for breaching the terms of parking on the land.

    1.6. The claimant has not provided any evidence of landowner authority for issuing parking charges.




    2 No Contract Exists

    2.1 I understand that the Claimants case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a contract between myself and the Claimant. The breach of terms on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by this signage.

    2.2 There is no offer made by the signage in this case, and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged contract, without breaching its terms. The sign states 'No parking in this area wholly or partially at any time'.

    2.3 The very act of entering into this alleged contract (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. How was the sum of £100 'agreed', given that PCM's sign is prohibitive - unable in this case to be deemed to be offering a contract? It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding as they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists

    2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and PCMUK vs Bull et al, in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. I cannot have entered into a contract for something I was not authorised to do.





    3 Inadequate Signage/Predatory enforcement

    3.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that I would not have passed any signage indicating I was entering private land.

    3.2 The writing is so small that any terms and conditions cannot be clearly read from a vehicle, even stopped adjacent to the sign. If it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.




    3.3 The signage was lit from above and behind and in the dark any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver.




    4 Landowner Authority

    4.1 The Claimant has not provided any evidence that they are authorised by the freeholder to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have such authority, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.







    5 Penalty charge



    5.1 The charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumercharge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying £100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay £100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of theConsumerRightsAct 2015.





    6 Additional Costs

    6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original parking charge. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

    6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for solicitor's costs, yet all I have received from the Claimants solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these costs are justified. Proof that the sum of £50 was paid by their client, to whom, and for what service.



    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 20th Apr 18, 11:02 AM
    • 35,570 Posts
    • 19,783 Thanks
    Quentin
    Saying the car had 2 drivers who were allowed to use it isn't really helpful


    In fact 1000's of drivers could legally drive it using their own insurance DOC cover with the car owners permission
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 20th Apr 18, 12:08 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Saying the car had 2 drivers who were allowed to use it isn't really helpful


    In fact 1000's of drivers could legally drive it using their own insurance DOC cover with the car owners permission
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Thanks Quentin - Deleted it
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 27th Apr 18, 10:35 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Hi All,


    I Went back to the site to take better picture of the parking signs but the signs have been replaced and there are more of them. The confusing fallen road sign has also been removed.


    I believe this proves the PPC thought they were inadequate and misleading and decided to change them.


    Should I put this in the defence statement or should I just put it in the witness statement?


    Thanks in advance
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 27th Apr 18, 10:48 AM
    • 2,454 Posts
    • 3,002 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yes, you state in your DEFENCE (it isnt a statement) that the signage was inadequate, and in recognition of this the C has since replaced the signs.
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 27th Apr 18, 12:51 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    So this is my defence, If all is ok I'll be posting this to the court tomorrow. What do you think?




    In the County Court
    Claim Number: ******************
    Between
    PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD v ************************






    Defence





    1 Introduction

    1.1. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark******which is the subject of these proceedings.




    1.2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant is put to strict proof.


    1.3. This claim refers to a parking incident on land outside ****** For all intents and purposes land appears to be part of the public highway as indicated by the fallen “End of Parking restriction” sign.


    1.4. On the ********* at approximately 21:30 the vehicle was on said land.


    1.5. The Particulars of Claim states that the charge is for breaching the terms of parking on the land.
    1.6. The claimant has not provided any evidence of landowner authority for issuing parking charges.




    2 No Contract Exists

    2.1 I understand that the Claimants case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a contract between myself and the Claimant. The breach of terms on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by this signage.

    2.2 There is no offer made by the signage in this case, and no conceivable way the driver could have benefitted from this alleged contract, without breaching its terms. The sign states 'No parking in this area wholly or partially at any time'.

    2.3 The very act of entering into this alleged contract (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. How was the sum of £100 'agreed', given that PCM's sign is prohibitive - unable in this case to be deemed to be offering a contract? It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding as they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists

    2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and PCMUK vs Bull et al, in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. The driver cannot have entered into a contract for something He was not authorised to do.





    3 Inadequate Signage/Predatory enforcement

    3.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that the driver would not have passed any signage indicating he was entering private land.

    3.2 The writing is so small that any terms and conditions cannot be clearly read from a vehicle, even stopped adjacent to the sign. If it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.




    3.3 The signage was lit from above and behind and in the dark any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver.


    3.4. The claimant has recognized that the signage was inadequate and has subsequently replaced and added extra signage. He has also removed the misleading “end of parking restriction” sign




    4 Landowner Authority



    4.1 The Claimant has not provided any evidence that they are authorised by the freeholder to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have such authority, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.






    5 Penalty charge






    5.1 The charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumercharge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying £100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay £100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.





    6 Additional Costs

    6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original parking charge. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

    6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for solicitor's costs, yet all I have received from the Claimants solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these costs are justified. Proof that the sum of £50 was paid by their client, to whom, and for what service.







    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true











    .................................................. .............


    (Defendant)





    ...........................


    (Date)

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Apr 18, 1:35 PM
    • 7,155 Posts
    • 6,614 Thanks
    KeithP
    Why will you be posting it to the court?

    Send it by email to the easily found CCBCAQ email address.
    .
    • Oscar_UK
    • By Oscar_UK 27th Apr 18, 1:38 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Oscar_UK
    Why will you be posting it to the court?

    Send it by email to the easily found CCBCAQ email address.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    I thought posting was recommended?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Apr 18, 11:26 PM
    • 57,369 Posts
    • 70,964 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, please read other threads by searching CCBCAQ email, this is said every day!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,604Posts Today

8,349Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin